Let's Stop Repeating One Of The Biggest Lies About Startupshttp://www.businessinsider.com/startup-lies-lifestyle-vs-venture-backed-2014-3/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:23:22 -0400Jillian D'Onfrohttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/531c43b769bedd9e2ad42ea5penjani mtongaSun, 09 Mar 2014 06:34:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531c43b769bedd9e2ad42ea5
how do you attract more customer as a start up hair dresser businesshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/531bda456bb3f71c6a60aad4Hillel CoopermanSat, 08 Mar 2014 22:04:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531bda456bb3f71c6a60aad4
Yes. The lie is an implicit one that is reinforced over and over again by industry writers who only want to write stories about startups who are hitting it big. And since there's such a lack of actual genuine sexy success in our industry, getting money from investors is deemed as "success". These companies are then lauded in the same publications for achieving vanity metrics that they acquired with the money they raised. When I see BI write as many articles about companies who decide NOT to take investment, who boostrap, who choose to own their own destiny, who don't spend someone else's money inflating vanity metrics, I'll believe you mean this.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531b506eecad041431a9ab15Mr. DaveSat, 08 Mar 2014 12:16:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531b506eecad041431a9ab15
HELL YEA - THE LAST SENTENCE IS "DEAD ON!"http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a41b769bedd62402a3c35pushbuttonchimpFri, 07 Mar 2014 17:01:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a41b769bedd62402a3c35
OK YOU GO FIRST.
At least half of BI's articles are about VCs and funding.
I love it when a startup calls me and they tell me they're on Series D funding. WFT is Series D? Fourth round of funding your company that isn't in any hurry to make money. This lack of urgency is troubling to people like me who like to see a company coming out of debt, not sinking deeper into it. The other part that's insulting is in telling me how little they're going to pay me to do the work as if it's coming out of their own pocket. We know the money came from a VC, so what's up with the skinflint below-market salary in Silicon Fucking Valley for chrisshakes?
The other myth that BI and SV keeps spreading is that entrepreneurs only exist in Silicon Valley, as if this is the only place to innovate. Excuse me but from a personal and professional perspective, it is one of the worst places to start something. The cost of living is in everyone's face, the rent is too damn high, and the idea that you would ever aspire to some kind of "permanent" living arrangement is out of reach for 99% of the people working there. Sure there's a few lucky folk, but the rest are one paycheck from living on the street.
Real entrepreneurs seek out cheap digs to start up and keep their costs down with the goal of being profitable as soon as earthly possible. SV likes to promote the idea that it's a country club of extended college, with no real aspirational goals other than starting things up. True business is focused on building businesses that profit and use sound financial wisdom of not starting up in the most expensive part of the most expensive cities on Earth.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a3824ecad042e5e2a3c37mikeg45Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:20:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a3824ecad042e5e2a3c37
I'm a semi-retired former dotcom'er who's done both -- and as my father (a CPA) always used to say "the secret to running a successful business is that you only have to work half days -- it just doesn't matter which 12 hours of the day you work".
There is no right or wrong answer to growing a business -- as long as you are happy doing it, enjoy the people you're working with and serving your customers well. The problem with VC is that you're giving up on growing yearly cash in the bank (ie: profits) in hopes for a big out pay-out (ie: winning the lottery) -- and that's IF you are lucky enough to get a nice offer AND can convince your investors to sell. If you or they mistime or screw up a deal (it happens), then it may not be much fun working together longer term.
Don't always believe the "smaller slice of a bigger pie" theory when weighing your options of a "lifestyle" vs "funded" business.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a2c476bb3f793230acc98HarryHFri, 07 Mar 2014 15:29:59 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a2c476bb3f793230acc98
You have a flawed an incomplete understanding of what a "lifestyle" business is. Not all companies have explosive growth potential and may not need gobs of venture investment. Some companies are profitable enough to provide a very comfortable lifestyle to the principals and employees but not exorbitant riches. It has nothing to do with how much of a person's life is devoted to the business.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a2777eab8ea5641655103James1Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:09:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/531a2777eab8ea5641655103
I think the "tech" startups today have the right approach not only to building a successful pyramid scheme but also to life. They are able to set up their scheme by working 100-hour weeks for maybe a year or two. They build this fake shell that looks great for the superficial investor and can be easily sold as the best thing since sliced bread. Then the company founders can sell their little golden egg for billions. Once sold, they just take the money and run ... without the prospect of having to work ever again, let alone working 100-hour weeks. And all at the price of just a couple of years of nerve-rackingly long hours.